TRUTZ HAASE
Social & Economic Consultant
Key Profile for County Limerick
This County Profile draws out the significant trends from a vast amount of available data. It is kept
deliberately short, such as to draw attention to only the most important of observations. In some
instances, the profile refers to a wider set of data spanning the four census waves from 1991 to 2006.
For space reasons, this data could not be fully included in the GAMMA baseline reports, but is
included in digital format on the disk accompanying the report.
Administrative Arrangements
There are two Partnership companies operating within County Limerick, which together cover the
whole county. The County Childcare Committee area also covers the entire county.

Since March 2008 there has been a change in the boundary definition between County Limerick
and County, by which Limerick North Rural (ED 21065) now constitutes part of County Limerick.
The definition of the Partnership areas are also fully aligned with the new boundary definition of
County Limerick. All aggregate statistics referred to in the Tables on the Disk and the Profile are
on a consistent basis; i.e. they refer to 1991 to 2006 area data on the basis of the revised
boundary definition of County Limerick.
Absolute and Relative Deprivation

Overall, the Mid West Region is the fourth most affluent region of Ireland, and County Limerick is
the most affluent local authority area within the region and making it the eighth most affluent
county in Ireland as a whole. The relative affluence of County Limerick has marginally decreased
over the past fifteen years from a score of 5.9 in 1991 to 4.9 in 2006.

As is the case in any county, there exists a degree of variation within County Limerick. The most
affluent areas within County Limerick are the wider periphery to the South and West of Limerick
City. The more disadvantaged areas are mainly the rural areas in the West of the County
bordering North Kerry and Cork.

This is reflected in the slight difference between the relative index scores for the two Partnership
areas, with Ballyhoura Development Partnership having a score of 7.6 in 2006 and the West
Limerick Partnership Area a score of 6.0.

At local level, there is only one ED which falls into the ‘extremely disadvantage’ category,
Rathkeale Urban (-35.1) and three EDs in the ‘disadvantaged’ category, Kilmoylan (-14.6),
Mountcollins (-12.7) and Glensharrold (-11.1). All other EDs are at the most in the ’marginally
below average’ category.
Population

Ireland has experienced a population growth of 20.3% over the past fifteen years whilst the Mid
West Region has grown at the slower rate of 16.2%. County Limerick’s population has grown at a
rate similar to the national rate (21.1%) and similar rates also apply to the two Partnerships,
Ballyhoura (19.9%) and West Limerick (22.2).

However, there exist considerable differences within County Limerick. The wider catchment area
of Limerick City, Limerick No 1 RD (51.4%) has experienced significant population growth. In
contrast, the population of Glin RD (-7.2%) and Mitchelstown No 2 RD (-2.0%) have actually
declined over the fifteen year period.

Three EDs about doubled their population, Limerick South Rural (107.3%), Ballycummin (96.7%)
and Newcastle Rural (92.4%). This starkly contrasts with the areas of greatest population
decline, Dunmoylan West (-32.7%), Feenagh (-20.1%) and Rathkeale Urban (-19.9%).
TRUTZ HAASE
Social & Economic Consultant
Demographic Characteristics

There has been a continuous decline in the age dependency rate (the proportion of population
under 15 years of age or over 64 as part of the total population) throughout Ireland over the past
15 years, from 38.1% in 1991 to 31.4% in 2006. An even greater decline applies to County
Limerick (39.2% to 30.9%). Whereas the county had an age dependency rate slightly above the
national average in 1991, it has now a rate slightly below it.

Age dependency rates do no vary greatly between the two Partnerships, but the Ballyhoura rate
(30.4%) is marginally lower to West Limerick (31.4%), reflecting the latter’s more rural character.

The proportion of lone parents (as a proportion of all households with dependent children) in
Ireland has exactly doubled over the past 15 years, growing from 10.7% in 1991 to 21.3%
nationally in 2006. There are marked differences between urban and rural areas, and lone parent
rates in the major cities are again up to twice the national average.

County Limerick had a rate of 15.1% in 2006, which is the forth lowest rate pertaining for any
county. Rates do no vary greatly between the two Partnerships, with Ballyhoura (14.4%) being
marginally lower than West Limerick (15.8%).

Looking at individual EDs, the highest lone parent rates are in Boola (35.7%), Rathkeale Rural
(30.0%), Newcastle Urban (28.9%), Kilmallock (26.1%) and Shanagolden (25.3%).
Education

There has been a continuous improvement in the level of education amongst adults over the past
15 years throughout Ireland. In 1991, 36.7% of the adult population had primary education only.
This dropped to half that level (18.9%) in 2006, thus indicating a strong cohort effect. The rate for
County Limerick has fallen from 33.5% in 1991 to 17.3% in 2006. This is a reduction of 16.1
percentage points (compared to -17.8 percentage point nationally), but the county remains
having the ninth lowest rate amongst all counties.

As can be expected, education levels vary within County Limerick but differences are within
moderation. The proportion of the adult population with primary education only is highest in Glin
RD (29.0%) and Newcastle RD (23.8%) and lowest in Limerick No 1 RD (10.8%) and Croom RD
(17.9%).

The EDs with the highest proportions of low education are Rathkeale Urban (47.1%), Kilmoylan
(36.4%), Boola (34.0%), Mountcollins (33.8%) and Glensharrold (32.1%).

The reverse applies with regard to third level education, which has more than doubled over the
past 15 years. In 1991, 13.0% of the national adult population had completed third level
education. This grew to 30.5% in 2006. The proportion of County Limerick’s population with third
level education has grown from 13.9% to 30.1%, a growth just slightly below that which has
occurred nationally (16.2% compared to 17.4%).

The differentiation at Partnership level mirrors the profiles of low education, but is almost
indistinguishable. The percentages for third level education are: Ballyhoura (30.4%) and West
Limerick (29.8%).

The EDs with the lowest proportions of their population with a third level education are Rathkeale
Urban (13.8%), Dunmoylan West (14.1%), Griston (14.7%), Mountplummer (14.8%) and
cleanglass (15.0%). In none of the EDs does the share fall below 10 per cent of the adult
population.
Social Class Composition

The changes in social class composition experienced throughout Ireland over the past 15 years
largely parallels those in educational achievement, with a gradual increase in the number of
TRUTZ HAASE
Social & Economic Consultant
professionals and an even greater decline in the proportion of semi- and unskilled manual
workers. At the national level, the proportion of professionals in all classes rose from 25.2% in
1991 to 32.9% in 2006, whilst the proportion of the semi- and unskilled classes declined from
28.2% to 18.6% over the same period.

In County Limerick, the proportion in the professional classes (34.4%) and the proportion in the
lower skilled professions (19.1%) mark the county as having one of the more favourable class
composition for any county. Differences in the social class composition between the two
Partnership areas reflect those of educational attainment, with Ballyhoura having a marginally
higher composition (35.4% professionals, 17.3% semi- and unskilled manual classes), and West
Limerick (33.5%, 20.6%).
Unemployment

Unemployment rates throughout Ireland have broadly halved over the past 15 years. Female
unemployment rates have tended to be slightly below male unemployment rates, but have not
fallen at the same pace due to the increasing levels of female labour force participation (i.e.
reflecting the trend of increased female participation in the labour force with more women
registering their unemployed status). The male unemployment rate fell from 18.4% in 1991 to
8.8% in 2006, whilst the female unemployment rate fell from 14.1% to 8.1%.

Unemployment rates for County Limerick have fallen at a rate slightly BELOW the nationally
prevailing ones between 1991 and 2006 (-8.4% male / -5.2% female compared to -9.6% male / 6.0% female nationally), but remain about two percentage points below the nationally prevailing
rates at 6.6% male unemployment and 6.8% female unemployment.

At Partnership level, unemployment rates are almost identical in Ballyhoura (7.1%, 6.2%) and
West Limerick (6.2%, 7.2%).

Unemployment rates in individual EDs reach levels well above those prevailing county wide, and
are highest in Rathkeale Urban (19.6%, 30.9%), followed by Bruree (24.0%, 10.9%), Abbeyfeale
(14.4%, 12.7%), Askeaton East (9.6%, 16.2%) and Newcastle Urban (10.0%, 12.0%).
Housing

There has been a 2.3 percentage point decline in the proportion of local authority housing in
Ireland over the past 15 years, from 9.8% in 1991 to 7.5% in 2006. The proportion in the Mid
West Region has declined by 2.0 percentage points, from 8.5% to 6.4%. County Limerick has
seen just a marginal decline of 0.1 percentage points from 4.4% to 4.2%. County Limerick has
the second lowest share in local authority housing amongst all counties.

Ballyhoura (4.3%) has a marginally higher share in local authority housing than West Limerick
(4.1%).

At ED level, the highest concentrations of local authority housing are found in Rathkeale Urban
(18.6%), Ballylanders (14.6%), Kilmallock (44.3%) and Cappamore (13.8%).
TRUTZ HAASE
Social & Economic Consultant
New Measures of Deprivation in the Republic of Ireland
An Inter-temporal and Spatial Analysis of data from the
Census of Population, 1991, 1996, 2002 and 2006
Trutz Haase & Jonathan Pratschke, February 2008
This section provides a brief summary of the new Measures of Deprivation for the Republic of Ireland,
drawing on recent data from the 2006 Census of Population. Building on the innovative and powerful
approach to the construction of deprivation indices developed in our previous research (Haase &
Pratschke, 2005), the new Measures of Deprivation provide an up-to-date analysis of the changes in
deprivation that have occurred in each local area over the past fifteen years 1.
How is the new deprivation index constructed?
Most deprivation indices are based on a factor analytical approach which reduces a larger number of
indicator variables to a smaller number of underlying dimensions or factors. This approach is taken a
step further in the Measures of Deprivation developed by Haase & Pratschke: rather than allowing the
definition of the underlying dimensions of deprivation to be determined by data-driven techniques, the
authors develop a prior conceptualisation of these dimensions. Based on earlier deprivation indices
for Ireland, as well as analyses from other countries, three dimensions of affluence/disadvantage are
identified: Demographic Profile, Social Class Composition and Labour Market Situation.
Demographic Profile is first and foremost a measure of rural affluence/deprivation. Whilst long-term
adverse labour market conditions tend to manifest themselves in urban areas in the form of
unemployment blackspots, in rural areas, by contrast, the result is typically agricultural
underemployment and/or emigration. Emigration from deprived rural areas is also, and increasingly,
the result of a mismatch between education and skill levels, on the one hand, and available job
opportunities, on the other. Emigration is socially selective, being concentrated amongst core
working-age cohorts and those with further education, leaving the communities concerned with a
disproportionate concentration of economically-dependent individuals as well as those with lower
levels of education. Sustained emigration leads to an erosion of the local labour force, a decreased
attractiveness for commercial and industrial investment and, ultimately, a decline in the availability of
services.
Demographic Profile is measured by five indicators:
 the percentage increase in population over the previous five years
 the percentage of population aged under 15 or over 64 years of age
 the percentage of population with a primary school education only
 the percentage of population with a third level education
 the percentage of households with children aged under 15 years and headed by a single parent
Social Class Composition is of equal relevance to both urban and rural areas. Social class
background has a considerable impact in many areas of life, including educational achievements,
health, housing, crime and economic status. Furthermore, social class is relatively stable over time
and constitutes a key factor in the inter-generational transmission of economic, cultural and social
assets. Areas with a weak social class profile tend to have higher unemployment rates, are more
vulnerable to the effects of economic restructuring and recession and are more likely to experience
low pay, poor working conditions as well as poor housing and social environments.
1
The present analysis supersedes and replaces the previous analysis by Haase & Pratschke (2005), as all
estimates are derived from a new matrix of observations covering all four census periods.
TRUTZ HAASE
Social & Economic Consultant
Social Class Composition is measured by five indicators:
 the percentage of population with a primary school education only
 the percentage of population with a third level education
 the percentage of households headed by professionals or managerial and technical employees,
including farmers with 100 acres or more
 the percentage of households headed by semi-skilled or unskilled manual workers, including
farmers with less than 30 acres
 the mean number of persons per room
Labour Market Situation is predominantly, but not exclusively, an urban measure. Unemployment
and long-term unemployment remain the principal causes of disadvantage at national level and are
responsible for the most concentrated forms of multiple disadvantage found in urban areas. In
addition to the economic hardship that results from the lack of paid employment, young people living
in areas with particularly high unemployment rates frequently lack positive role models. A further
expression of social and economic hardship in urban unemployment blackspots is the large proportion
of young families headed by a single parent.
Labour Market Situation is measured by four indicators:
 the percentage of households headed by semi-skilled or unskilled manual workers, including
farmers with less than 30 acres
 the percentage of households with children aged under 15 years and headed by a single parent
 the male unemployment rate
 the female unemployment rate
Each dimension is calculated in the same way for each census wave and then combined to form an
Absolute Index Score and Relative Index Score. The Absolute Index Scores have a mean of zero
and a standard deviation of ten in 1991, with varying means and standard deviations in subsequent
periods that reflect the underlying trends. The Relative Index Score is identical to the absolute score
in 1991, with the difference that the 1996, 2002 and 2006 scores are ‘detrended’. In other words, the
overall average for each census wave is subtracted from the scores (which consequently have a
mean of zero) in order to remove national trends from the index scores and to highlight differences in
their relative values. In addition, the standard deviation is set to ten for each wave so that the Relative
Index Scores provide a standardised measurement of relative affluence or deprivation in a given area
at a specific point in time.
Figure 1: Distribution of Absolute Index Scores, 1991, 1996, 2002 and 2006
1200
Number of EDs
1991
1000
1996
2002
800
2006
600
400
200
0
-42.5 -37.5 -32.5 -27.5 -22.5 -17.5 -12.5 -7.5
most disadvantaged
-2.5
2.5
7.5
12.5 17.5 22.5 27.5 32.5 37.5 42.5
most affluent
TRUTZ HAASE
Social & Economic Consultant
What is the difference between the Absolute and Relative Index Scores?
The Absolute Index Scores measure the actual affluence/deprivation of each area on a single fixed
scale which, for 1991, has a mean of zero and standard deviation of ten. As the economy has greatly
improved over the past fifteen years, the Absolute Index Scores for most EDs have increased
significantly. Because affluence/deprivation is measured on a fixed scale, it is possible to use the
Absolute Index Scores to evaluate this progress across successive waves of data. However, if we are
interested in targeting resources towards disadvantaged areas, the relative position of each area at a
specific point in time is of greater importance. This is represented by the Relative Index Scores,
which have been rescaled so as to have a mean of zero and standard deviation of ten at each census
wave. Thus, for the development of the latest round of social inclusion plans, the appropriate
deprivation measure to use is the 2006 Relative Index Score. It shows the position of any given ED
relative to all other EDs in 2006.
Why are the Measures of Deprivation not expressed in decile rankings?
Decile rankings divide all spatial units into equally-sized categories. This is used primarily for mapping
purposes, although it is also sometimes used in the comparison of scores derived from indices that do
not utilise identical measurement scales across successive waves of data. However, it is important to
be aware that this use of decile rankings is problematic, as relatively large changes at the extremes of
the affluence-to-deprivation spectrum may not be reflected in a change in decile ranking, whilst
relatively minor changes at the middle of the distribution can easily result in a change of one or two
deciles. In contrast, the New Measures of Deprivation presented in this report use the same
measurement structure and scale for successive census waves. As a result, the use of rankings is not
required, and the Absolute Index Scores can be compared over time. This approach pays greater
attention to the actual level of deprivation experienced, reflected in the distance from the mean, and is
superior to decile rankings.
How should the Index Scores be interpreted?
Figure 1 (above) shows the distribution of Absolute Index Scores for the four census waves and
reveals a number of important attributes of the Index. Firstly, the scores range between roughly -50
(most disadvantaged) and +50 (most affluent). The measurement scale is identical for all four census
waves, thus allowing the direct comparison of each area’s score from one wave to the next. The scale
is constructed in such a way that the mean score for 1991 is equal to zero and the standard deviation
is equal to ten.
The rightward shift of the 1996, 2002 and 2006 curves relative to 1991 reflects the exceptional growth
experienced by the Irish economy over this period. As we have noted, the mean score for 1991 is
zero, which rises to 2.4 in 1996, 8.2 in 2002 and 8.9 in 2006, capturing the impact of sustained
economic growth2. In this context, it is important to understand that the Absolute Index Score for a
given area may change over time even where its position relative to other areas remains unchanged.
The distributions follow a bell-shaped curve, with most areas clustered around the mean and fewer
areas exhibiting extreme levels of affluence or deprivation. Most importantly, the curve of scores has
become narrower over the course of this fifteen-year period. This is important, as the corresponding
reduction in the standard deviation is indicative of a certain narrowing of the differential between
affluent and deprived areas, at least when measured using the indicator variables described above.
The Relative Index Scores are rescaled to have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of ten at
each census wave. This makes it more meaningful when putting descriptive labels on the values, as
utilised in the maps for the Relative Index Scores. The labels used for each range of standard
deviations are as follows:
2
It is worth noting that the large shift from 1996 to 2002 is partly due to the delayed implementation of the
Census due to the Foot and Mouth Disease in Spring 2001.
TRUTZ HAASE
Social & Economic Consultant
Table 1: Distribution and Labels of Relative Index Scores, 2006
Relative Index
Score
over 30
20 to 30
10 to 20
0 to 10
0 to -10
-10 to -20
-20 to -30
below -30
Standard
Deviation
>3
2 to 3
1 to 2
0 to 1
0 to -1
-1 to -2
-2 to -3
< -3
Label
extremely affluent
very affluent
affluent
marginally above average
marginally below average
disadvantaged
very disadvantaged
extremely disadvantaged
Colour Scheme
in Maps
dark blue
medium blue
medium green
light green
light yellow
medium yellow
orange
red
Number
of EDs in
2006
0
68
372
1393
1141
296
106
33
Percentage
of EDs in
2006
0.0
2.0
10.9
40.9
33.5
8.7
3.1
1.0
When making comparisons over time, the appropriate scores to use are the Absolute Index Scores
without the labels, as the meaning of what constitutes affluence or deprivation changes from one
census to another. When making a statement about a particular ED or an area at a particular point in
time (e.g. in 2006) the appropriate score to use is the (2006) Relative Index Score and this can be
described using the labels as shown in Table 1.
How are deprivation scores calculated for larger areas?
Both Absolute and Relative Index Scores can easily be derived for any aggregate area, such as
Partnership areas, counties or local authority areas, regions or Ireland as a whole. This is done by
calculating the population-weighted average for the aggregate area. Thus, the affluence or deprivation
of any ED will contribute to the area score proportionate to the number of people residing within it.
Due to the application of population weights in the calculation of aggregate area scores, the Ireland
Totals for the Relative Index Scores in Table 1.1 are no longer equal to zero and the Absolute Index
Scores for Ireland move from 2.3 (1991) to 5.2 (1996), 10.8 (2002) and 10.4 (2006) respectively.
Reading the Tables, Graphs and Maps
The New Measures of Deprivation cover the following:
A. Ten individual indicator variables which are used to construct the index;
B. Eight composite index scores (one Absolute Index Score and one Relative Index Score for
each of the four census waves);
C. Additional variables which show how each indicator has changed over the 15-year period and
a ranking of each area using the 2006 census data 3.
The full ED-level data for all of the underlying indicator variables and the Absolute and Relative Index
Scores are contained on the accompanying disk and will also be made available on the Pobal
website4. The website will feature a broad range of graphs and maps and the full report on the
construction of the index, as they become available.
The disk also contains a summary report which shows the area aggregates for the 34 Local Authority
Areas (NUTS4), the 8 Regional Authorities (NUTS3), the two NUTS2 Regions (Southern & Eastern
Region and Border, Midlands and Western Region) and Ireland as a whole (NUTS1). These provide
important reference values when interpreting the relative affluence or deprivation of any specific area.
3
4
Note: Tables 13 to 15 show additional housing tenure data. This is included here for information only, but is not
used in the construction of the index.
www.pobal.ie
TRUTZ HAASE
Social & Economic Consultant
Substantive Findings
Ireland 1991-2006, a period of unprecedented growth
The first four index scores show the absolute level of overall affluence and deprivation in 1991, 1996,
2002 and 2006, using identical measurement scales. As we noted above, the mean Index score rose
considerably during this period, from 0 to 2.4 between 1991 and 1996, from 2.4 to 8.2 between 1996
and 2002, and from 8.2 to 8.9 between 2002 and 2006. This shift in the means suggests the
existence of three relatively distinct phases: the first, from 1991 to 1996, is a period of relatively
gradual initial growth, 1996 to 2002 marks a period of rapid growth, whilst the 2002 to 2006 period is
characterised by a slow-down in the rate of change.
Comparing the ED-level maps of Absolute Index Scores for the four census waves provides a
fascinating insight into the spatial distribution of this growing affluence, most importantly the overriding
importance of Ireland’s urban centres and the influence that these assert on their environs. The most
affluent areas of the country are distributed in concentric rings around the main population centres,
mainly demarcating the urban commuter belts. The measures show how rapidly these rings of
affluence expanded during the 1990s, as large-scale private housing development took place in the
outer urban periphery, generating high concentrations of relatively affluent young couples.
The spatial distribution of deprivation over time
Comparing the ED-level maps of the Relative Index Scores for the four census waves shows the
limited degree to which the relative position of local areas has changed over the past fifteen years.
The worst-affected areas in 1991 were generally in the same position in 2006, despite the
unprecedented economic growth that has been experienced by practically all parts of the country. The
rising tide seems to have lifted most boats, but this ‘lift’ has tended to conserve the relatively stable
differentials that already existed between affluent and poorer areas. The most remarkable exception
to this general observation is Dublin’s Inner City, where massive investment has led to significant
gentrification. Moreover, the narrowing of the distribution of Absolute Index Scores suggests that
there has been some progress in narrowing the differences between the most affluent and most
disadvantaged areas. It is disturbing, however, to observe that some of the most disadvantaged urban
areas, particularly in Limerick, Cork and Waterford, have failed to participate in the generalised
improvement in living standards, and have, as a consequence, fallen even further behind the more
affluent areas of Ireland.